Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

boom.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#91

Post by toomuchtodo »

jerf wrote: post #58
teraflop wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably they're just testing the ergonomics of their seat/cockpit layout, or something along those lines. Unless you're worried that they're actually going to try to build an airplane out of cardboard, I don't see what the problem is.

"Unless you're worried that they're actually going to try to build an airplane out of cardboard" I dunno. They do say "carbon fiber" a lot... and that is a description of cardboard....

Carbon fiber is incredibly strong when engineered properly:

"During the test, the wings on the 787 were flexed upward “approximately 25 feet” which equates to 150 percent of the most extreme forces the airplane is ever expected to encounter during normal operation. The test is used to demonstrate a safety margin for the design and is part of the certification process to show the airplane can withstand extreme forces."

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#92

Post by Someone1234 »

ido wrote: post #79
rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

The top speed of a 747 is 0.85 Mach, so it should cut the duration by more than 2x.

Only in the best case scenario.

One of the reasons Concord "failed" is that it could never fly supersonic over land and had to start slowing long before the destination otherwise it would overshoot (along with fuel costs causing Concord to be more expensive than business class).

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#93

Post by jessaustin »

danielschonfeld wrote: post #22

Be interesting to see how they manage to increase range and payload substantially where Concorde wasn't able to. Interesting from a tech point if they manage to build and certify a brand new supersonic airplane based on new materials. From a customer's stand point though, hardly anything new.

One advantage they might have over Concorde is that design began in the 2010s rather than the 1950s...

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#94

Post by alex_duf »

ohitsdom wrote: post #75
staceymakano wrote: post #18

And the environmental impact is... what? Amazing that this is not a consideration, especially since we are now in emergency territory: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/global-wa... It's great for you to leave SF in the morning, go to Sydney to watch the opera and be back in SF by midnight. But is the environmental impact of you doing that worth it for everyone else?

Definitely worth mentioning in the article, but not a big concern. Even if this plane actually comes to market and is successful according to their wildest hopes, it'll only be a very tiny fraction of the aviation market. This is due to many factors: small cabin, limited capacity, limited routes (only over water)...

> it'll only be a very tiny fraction of the aviation market.

So is everyone driving in the morning: a tiny fraction of the transport pollution. Add every tiny fraction and you get a significant fraction.

To add to staceymakano's point: in the transport industry, I feel very uncomfortable when a a new alternative doesn't perform better on the environmental side.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#95

Post by mmcclure »

NickM wrote: post #35
themgt wrote: post #3

Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.

"Bad" names can attract lots of attention. Perhaps they're more interested in turning heads than setting up the best possible brand connotations.

Case in point: Soylent

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#96

Post by btown »

ant6n wrote: post #68

It describes their values as something like 'fly long distance in the morning, do a bunch of meetings there, and be back before the end of the day'. Does it make sense to travel 20,000km on one day to make a bunch of meetings, spending 15,000$? I feel that better tele-presence just makes more sense.

In the financial world, where the physical presence of a trusted deal quarterback (who may fill that role for multiple deals at once) makes all the difference, the answer is a resounding yes. I love telepresence as much as anyone, but the reality is that nothing replaces a good firm handshake at the right moment, and nothing will unless we start living the majority of our waking hours in VR.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#97

Post by leonroy »

ant6n wrote: post #68

It describes their values as something like 'fly long distance in the morning, do a bunch of meetings there, and be back before the end of the day'. Does it make sense to travel 20,000km on one day to make a bunch of meetings, spending 15,000$? I feel that better tele-presence just makes more sense.

I wonder if the original demand for Concorde between NYC-LDN was due to the clear link as major financial centers.

As video and audio conferencing proliferated the demand for in person meetings amongst customers in finance would have gone down. That would have hit Concorde pretty hard.

Business which needs to be conducted in person could be between factory and design hubs. Silicon Valley to China's manufacturing centers for example.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#98

Post by [deleted] »

oddeyed wrote: post #70
jondiggsit wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely worth it. We live in the future. If you can fly half way around the world to watch an opera and be home by midnight, do it. Riding your bicycle to work isn't going to save the planet, neither is reconsidering a flight. Environmental concerns should be that of multi-national corporations and governments. The 1% flying around the world isn't killing the planet. It's industrial output from cattle and energy p…

Personally, I live in the present. Snarkiness aside, I think you're mistaken. You can't say 'industrial use' or 'industrial output' and absolve yourself of responsibility. The electronics that you wrote this comment on were all built with yucky industrial machines, running on yucky industrial oil which had to pulled out of the ground by yucky, messy drilling machines. And the kicker is that people did all of that bec…

[deleted]

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#99

Post by run4yourlives2 »

This seems nice, but there's no way 6 guys in a hanger in Denver are going to build a viable supersonic passenger aircraft that meets FAA standards for mass passenger travel, is fuel efficient enough that tickets aren't $20K and somehow also turns a profit.

I know "never say never", but this is about as confident a statement I or anyone with 3 minutes of reading on the airline industry can make. Margins are razor thin as it is.

A much better option (IMO) would be to research a Citation/Learjet sized supersonic aircraft. If you think of the market, the rich would be much more comfortable leaving from a smaller/private terminal in their private jet, zipping to London in 4 hours, and then zipping back on their own time, than they would going through the main terminal and all that nonsense just to save 3 hours in the air. Hell, being in the air in first class is the best part of the entire trip!

These guys (No connection whatsoever) http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/ have been trying to do the latter for 13 years. Thirteen. They just got their first order.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#100

Post by vonklaus »

I wonder if petrr theil is an investor. He uses the deprecation of the concord as an example our socoety is slowing down technologically (literally & figuratively).

I have to imagine demand for international biz class flights have gone up since the concord retired given that global is a given for almost all industries.

If you are an executive (even a well paid employee) it could be worth your time to do this. It is ~1200 usd for a roundtrip flight from NYC to LON.

By the time these guys launch, it will likely be much more. The opportunity cost/math will be simple. I think that there is a high correlation of people who value their time > $200 that need international flights.

Depending how prices shake out I could see this working. Obviously, super hard to do an airline company.

sentiment: cautiously opyimistic

Post reply on HN